Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 03:56:20 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Quickseller or marcotheminer frame ndnhc? If not, who did?  (Read 3388 times)
qsexpose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:11:59 AM
 #1

This is a throwaway account created specifically to raise these points, I do not want to start a possible trust war. Even my writing style has been changed for the purposes of this thread to try and make me unidentifiable. I am an experienced Bitcointalk member, and I'll give you the following details about my account: 2+ years registered, Legendary, decently high trust (dark green before it became easy as fuck to get). On DefaultTrust, depth 2. If a staff member (preferably global mod/admin) wants to verify this that is fine, I can get my more experienced account to PM them but that information is confidential, must not be disclosed and I will not verify to non-staff. This is on the condition that they MUST keep it 100% confidential and not disclose it EVEN to other staff.

In light of the recent possible framing of ndnhc I have decided to put the following information out here for now for you guys to think on. I will not put an overall opinion in yet but this is the information I've gathered. Do with it as you will. This thread is not per se an accusation thread but a gathering of a mixture of info and my personal opinions on what may have happened (this may be all false - I am not guaranteeing it's true at this time).

The main points of this list start at #7.

1. Quickseller was recently removed from the DefaultTrust list, perceivably for being unethical with his ratings. He has now been re-added, however.

2. marcotheminer is a signature campaign manager. ndnhc is also a signature campaign manager.

3. I have reason to believe marcotheminer wanted to take over ndnhc's campaign with DaDice, but that this failed. I will not verify this with ndnhc in PM by asking for proof, if he wants to publicly do that on this thread if he is allowed to then that'd be nice.

4. It is perceivable that Quickseller is somewhat friendly with marcotheminer, even using neutral DefaultTrust feedbacks to communicate with him. This is speculation but either way it doesn't really need to be said, I just decided to. It doesn't particularly matter if QS is friends with marcotheminer but it's worth noting.

5. Point #3 resulted in a fail as ndnhc remained the manager of the campaign. However, what better way would there be to take control of the signature campaign than to get ndnhc kicked...for extortion?

6. ndnhc did not visit Bitcointalk on the 28th, 29th or 30th of May.

7. On May 26th, the DaDice Bounty Prediction contest closed. It is understood that all guesses after that date would have been rendered invalid.

8. On the same thread page, only 4 posts after the announcement of the contest closing, question2 posted an entry using the address 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97Yy1XAuE. Timestamp: May 27, 2015, 09:44:49 PM. This timestamp is important. Why would someone be entering when it's clear the contest is over?

9. On May 28, 2015, at 02:18:36 PM forum time, question2 edited the post changing a "1" in the address to an "I". ndnhc was away at this time and unable to access bitcointalk. There is also no sane reason ndnhc would decide to change it if he was honestly guilty, as this increased suspicions.

10. Timestamp: May 27, 2015, 10:30:41 PM. Quickseller opens the "ndnhc is an extortionist" thread with only 45 minutes, 46 seconds having passed since question2 posted the address. That is an extremely fast response time for a read in a section that is not even popular for most users (Games and Rounds? You trying to tell me that's a main section?).

11. Quickseller must have done all of the following in 45 minutes and 46 seconds:

- Looked through an obsolete section
- Looked through a sea of threads
- Happened to find that post
- Looked up the address
- Looked at transaction logs and actually (assuming he uses blockchain.info as that is what he linked to) happened to have just clicked on the first transaction id on the address page to find the second address used to sign - the transactions on the address page do not show other input addresses
- Looked up this second address
- Found it matched to ndnhc with thread proof
- Typed up the entire accusation with archive links, quotes, "proof", etc.

12. Quickseller is either a heavy user of steroids and in training with Usain Bolt, or something is wrong here.

13. Quickseller has been reported to have a history of unethical ratings.

14. Even if he managed to *somehow* do that in 45 minutes, 46 seconds (which let's be honest, could you do all that from scratch with no idea of what was going to happen, just randomly browsing bitcointalk?), he didn't even give time to consider the report.

15. Let's go back to point #9. Why did this happen? Did someone want to strengthen the case?

16. Wait, strengthen the case? Who in their right mind would do something to make themselves look more suspicious...? Unless...it was a framing?

That's all for me. If you want to donate in some hope you'll be able to track the transaction later on to find that I signed it with another address so that you can find out (No, that isn't happening, I'll use a mixer) then my (fresh) address is 18zoAoKTgTv5NJqEvLSwFWoxGWf5MQZVGv.

Also, I may if this boils over well, decide to reveal my identity. Maybe.

Some extra butter: Anything that may lead to who framed ndnhc, if you think it wasn't QS, is appreciated. I want to find out who this bugger is.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513266980
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513266980

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513266980
Reply with quote  #2

1513266980
Report to moderator
1513266980
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513266980

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513266980
Reply with quote  #2

1513266980
Report to moderator
marcotheminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:46:37 AM
 #2

I don't have the time right now to read everything you've written but I do have the time to answer your thread question.

"Did Quickseller & marcotheminer frame ndnhc?" No, I did not frame ndnhc. This sound like one heck of a conspiracy theory.

I'm fairly sure I know your main account, doesn't matter though.
qsexpose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:49:38 AM
 #3

I don't have the time right now to read everything you've written but I do have the time to answer your thread question.

"Did Quickseller & marcotheminer frame ndnhc?" No, I did not frame ndnhc.

Doesn't answer for Quickseller though. The events are curious.
marcotheminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
May 31, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
 #4

I don't have the time right now to read everything you've written but I do have the time to answer your thread question.

"Did Quickseller & marcotheminer frame ndnhc?" No, I did not frame ndnhc.

Doesn't answer for Quickseller though. The events are curious.

I'm not speaking on behalf of any other user. I edited the quoted post by the way.
Muhammed Zakir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!


View Profile WWW
May 31, 2015, 11:57:05 AM
 #5

I don't think QS and/or Marco framed ndnc nor do I think ndnc is extortionist. Only thing ndnc has to do now is to prove that 1GjMtZop3K6JZW7emBWXC11ZhdQ1xEJwpm is a deposit address.


People do enter after contest is over. Go through threads and you will see.

Tomatocage
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1526

brb keeping up with the Kardashians


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:17:17 PM
 #6

This is a throwaway account created specifically to raise these points, I do not want to start a possible trust war. Even my writing style has been changed for the purposes of this thread to try and make me unidentifiable. I am an experienced Bitcointalk member, and I'll give you the following details about my account: 2+ years registered, either Legendary or Hero Member, decently high trust (dark green before it became easy as fuck to get). On DefaultTrust, depth 2. If a staff member (preferably global mod/admin) wants to verify this that is fine, I can get my more experienced account to PM them but that information is confidential, must not be disclosed and I will not verify to non-staff. This is on the condition that they MUST keep it 100% confidential and not disclose it EVEN to other staff.

You actually kinda sound like me, other than the depth 2 part.

THIS SPOT FOR RENT* | GPG ID: 4880D85C | 1% Escrow | 8% IPO/ICO Escrow services Temporarily Closed | Bitcointalk is the ONLY place where I use this name (No Skype/IRC/YIM/AIM/etc) | 13CsmTqGNwvFXb7tD9yFvJcEYCDTB8wQTS | Beware of these SCAM sites! | *Sponsored Link
ndnh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:20:14 PM
 #7

I don't think QS and/or Marco framed ndnc nor do I think ndnc is extortionist. Only thing ndnc has to do now is to prove that 1GjMtZop3K6JZW7emBWXC11ZhdQ1xEJwpm is a deposit address.

It is ndnhc Grin

I clearly said it need not be a deposit address after all. It could be a wallet address (or a shared wallet) more likely. The address is 17 months old, so I am still trying to figure out where it came from. It will make things more clear. But it won't prove me true or false. Just make me know what happened with a little more clarity. Smiley
I found a btcoracle link (I posted it there) which meant it could both send and receive with the same address.


Quote

The point is I don't. Plus, I will use my real account as I used to.
I read the thread before posting.

qsexpose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:20:23 PM
 #8

This is a throwaway account created specifically to raise these points, I do not want to start a possible trust war. Even my writing style has been changed for the purposes of this thread to try and make me unidentifiable. I am an experienced Bitcointalk member, and I'll give you the following details about my account: 2+ years registered, either Legendary or Hero Member, decently high trust (dark green before it became easy as fuck to get). On DefaultTrust, depth 2. If a staff member (preferably global mod/admin) wants to verify this that is fine, I can get my more experienced account to PM them but that information is confidential, must not be disclosed and I will not verify to non-staff. This is on the condition that they MUST keep it 100% confidential and not disclose it EVEN to other staff.

You actually kinda sound like me, other than the depth 2 part.

Maybe I am.

Probably my last post with this account;

@Zakir Please let me bring your attention to the following quote. I'm not sure how this isn't suspicious:

Quote
10. Timestamp: May 27, 2015, 10:30:41 PM. Quickseller opens the "ndnhc is an extortionist" thread with only 45 minutes, 46 seconds having passed since question2 posted the address. That is an extremely fast response time for a read in a section that is not even popular for most users (Games and Rounds? You trying to tell me that's a main section?).

11. Quickseller must have done all of the following in 45 minutes and 46 seconds:

- Looked through an obsolete section
- Looked through a sea of threads
- Happened to find that post
- Looked up the address
- Looked at transaction logs and actually (assuming he uses blockchain.info as that is what he linked to) happened to have just clicked on the first transaction id on the address page to find the second address used to sign - the transactions on the address page do not show other input addresses
- Looked up this second address
- Found it matched to ndnhc with thread proof
- Typed up the entire accusation with archive links, quotes, "proof", etc.

12. Quickseller is either a heavy user of steroids and in training with Usain Bolt, or something is wrong here.

13. Quickseller has been reported to have a history of unethical ratings.

14. Even if he managed to *somehow* do that in 45 minutes, 46 seconds (which let's be honest, could you do all that from scratch with no idea of what was going to happen, just randomly browsing bitcointalk?), he didn't even give time to consider the report.

Peace.
311
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233

Come original.


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:25:04 PM
 #9

I don't know what good this thread does other than needlessly confuse the situation. It looks to be purely opinionated and not actualy based on any evidence. I think it's unfair to try blame QS or Marco just as much as it is to blame ndnhc in the first place. Without more evidence I don't think its fair to blame any of them in my opinion.
ndnh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:28:11 PM
 #10

I don't know what good this thread does other than needlessly confuse the situation. It looks to be purely opinionated and not actualy based on any evidence. I think it's unfair to try blame QS or Marco just as much as it is to blame ndnhc in the first place. Without more evidence I don't think its fair to blame any of them in my opinion.

Smiley
Quickseller just removed his negative trust too. Smiley

I honestly don't know who did it or who is to blame. Although I still have a list of suspects.  Grin
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260

#PathOfTotality


View Profile WWW
May 31, 2015, 12:32:14 PM
 #11

Nope. I did not try to frame him. I explained how I made the connection between the two accounts here.

Quote
I did not receive a 'tip' about this from anyone. 'question 2' had posted in the DaDice signature campaign claiming that joca97 has a lot of alts, was probably trying to get BadBear to look into joca97's alts and was overall trolling joca97. I saw that he had negative trust, saw the reason for the negative trust and reviewed his (very short) post history and found the address. Once I found the address, I used walletexplorer.com to find spend-linked addresses (there was only one) and did a "site:bitcointalk.org" google search for both addresses and found the posts by ndnhc with the spend-linked address.

Your point 9 is also invalid, as this fact takes someone's word as fact which is heresy.

#1 is wrong, as this was not the reason. BadBear removed me because I had gotten two alts wrong with my trust, however he wouldn't tell me which ones. It had nothing to do with ethics.

#4 - being friendly with someone has nothing to do with one's willingness to abuse the trust system to further their profits

#13 - No I don't.


I cannot speak to anything that anyone else did or did not do. However using a throwaway account is not straightening your case IMO.

Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
May 31, 2015, 12:33:47 PM
 #12

lol this forum gets crazier by the minute...







.BITSLER.                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄            
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄      
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █  
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀              
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
ajareselde
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:35:32 PM
 #13

Interesting read,it did cross my mind as a possibility also, however highly unlikely that anything can be proven, it's all insinuations.
Too bad we dont have the ability to track login IP's to clear things up a bit.
qsexpose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:41:56 PM
 #14

lol this forum gets crazier by the minute...


http://i.imgur.com/8wGqQlU.jpg

I didn't mean to log into this account again, but seeing that kind of pissed me off...

I wouldn't dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. I don't appreciate your spam-esque response, especially as I think you're generally an alright guy Blazedout.

Note I'm merely pointing out things I find weird, mainly the time it took QS to respond. I appreciate that QS made a response, so thanks for that @QS.

But if you think I shouldn't take ndnhc's word, are you implying you think he wasn't framed?
311
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233

Come original.


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
 #15

Interesting read,it did cross my mind as a possibility also, however highly unlikely that anything can be proven, it's all insinuations.
Too bad we dont have the ability to track login IP's to clear things up a bit.

That likely wouldn't sort the situation either. If it was one of the three I'm sure they'd be wise enough to use tor or not their normal IP. Since QS has removed the feedback and I'm sure vod will to I think this should just be marked as inconclusive but there's definitly not enough evidence to pin any wrong doing on anyone in my opinion.
erikalui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile WWW
May 31, 2015, 12:46:25 PM
 #16

I seriously don't think that Marco or any other pirated copy of James Bond will try to frame ndnhc. It's most probably a member who was a part of the dadice campaign and who recently was removed/denied payment by the campaign tried to frame ndnhc. Only ndnhc would be able to check this and expose him as other members here aren't even interested in finding out the culprit. The newbie account hasn't been active since May 28th and it's likely that he/she would try to come back with another account and scam someone else. Rather than arguing about the former case, the forum needs to know the real culprit.

              ▄▄▄
            ▄█████▄
          ▄█████████▄
        ▄█████████████▄
      ▄█████████████████▄
    ▄████▀███████████▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▀███████▀   ▀████▄
  ████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
   ▀████▄ ▄████▀████▄ ▄████▀
     ▀███████▀   ▀███████▀
       ▀████▄     ▄████▀
         ▀████▄ ▄████▀
           ▀███████▀
             ▀███▀







     ▐███████▌           ▐███▌      ▐███▌        ████         ██████████████
     █████████           █████      █████        ████         ▀▀▀▀▀████▀▀▀▀▀
    ▐███▌ ▐███▌         ▐█████▌    ▐█████▌       ████              ████
    ████   ████         ███████    ███████       ████              ████
   ▐███▌   ▐███▌       ▐███▌███▌  ▐███▐███▌      ████              ████
   ████     ████       ████  ███  ███  ████      ████              ████
  ▐███████▄ ▐███▌     ▐███▌  ▐██▌▐██▌  ▐███▌     ████              ████
  ████▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████     ████    ██████    ████     ████              ████
 ▐███▌       ▐███▌   ▐███▌    ▐████▌    ▐███▌    ███████████       ████
 ▀▀▀▀         ▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀
███▀
▐▌


▐▌

███▄
1
....The Token of Compliance....

❱❱  Facebook   ❱❱  Twitter   ❱❱  Telegram   ❱❱  Blog
▀███
▐▌


▐▌

▄███
███▀
▐▌


▐▌

███▄
▀███
▐▌


▐▌

▄███
ndnh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


New Decentralized Nuclear Hobbit


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:46:52 PM
 #17

It isn't exactly as complicated as a conspiracy theory.

A hated B and C. A blackmailed B. Then an idea struck him! A framed C. Done.

Anyway, I am sure A has been active at least recently, since it struck him to change the address posted then.




I seriously don't think that Marco or any other pirated copy of James Bond will try to frame ndnhc. It's most probably a member who was a part of the dadice campaign and who recently was removed/denied payment by the campaign tried to frame ndnhc. Only ndnhc would be able to check this and expose him as other members here aren't even interested in finding out the culprit. The newbie account hasn't been active since May 28th and it's likely that he/she would try to come back with another account and scam someone else. Rather than arguing about the former case, the forum needs to know the real culprit.

Fair point. That is why my list of suspects isn't just 2 or 3 members.  Grin
I am not going to bother about this. I got to manage and fix the campaign I am responsible for.
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


# Free market


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:46:56 PM
 #18

lol this forum gets crazier by the minute...








Everyday a new fantastic story What will it be the next one?  Without real proof an  accusation can't stay up or am I wrong? However I also don't think Quickseller or marcotheminer were the responsible.
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile WWW
May 31, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
 #19

lol this forum gets crazier by the minute...




I didn't mean to log into this account again, but seeing that kind of pissed me off...

I wouldn't dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. I don't appreciate your spam-esque response, especially as I think you're generally an alright guy Blazedout.

Note I'm merely pointing out things I find weird, mainly the time it took QS to respond. I appreciate that QS made a response, so thanks for that @QS.

But if you think I shouldn't take ndnhc's word, are you implying you think he wasn't framed?

It actually does look like he was framed... I guess you have never seen that movie.

I do not think QS or Marco did this though.

Also the picture was apparently a failed attempt at some humor - We will now start seeing lots of conspiracy theories here now that someone has been framed.


.BITSLER.                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄            
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄      
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █  
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀              
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
qsexpose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
 #20

Interesting read,it did cross my mind as a possibility also, however highly unlikely that anything can be proven, it's all insinuations.
Too bad we dont have the ability to track login IP's to clear things up a bit.

That likely wouldn't sort the situation either. If it was one of the three I'm sure they'd be wise enough to use tor or not their normal IP. Since QS has removed the feedback and I'm sure vod will to I think this should just be marked as inconclusive but there's definitly not enough evidence to pin any wrong doing on anyone in my opinion.

I think you might be right that we should draw this as inconclusive. I never claimed my evidence was good, I just think it is something that should definitely be considered due to strange implications. So there you go.

This 360 second posting timer is such a pain.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!